calpundit explains it all

I have no idea whether [the claim that that the U.S. forces had been forced to change their plans] is true. Personally I doubt it. But even if it were true – so what?

There are doomsters and defeatists out there who keep insisting that the U.S. and its allies can only claim victory if they meet an ever-lengthening list of conditions:

“The allies win ONLY IF they (1) overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime and (2) find Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and (3) do so with minimal casualties and (4) also with minimal Iraqi casualties while (5) being hailed and welcomed by the Iraqi population and (6) without upsetting Arab public opinion too much also (7) without irritating the European allies too much and now (8) without any alterations of their original plan.” In other words, allied success can be discounted if along the way the allies make any adjustment of their plans to circumstances.

Kevin Drum responds with the obvious: Most of those conditions were the ones the Administration used to sell its war.

OK, I'm willing skip point #8, but the first seven seem pretty reasonable, don't they? In fact, except for the part about not annoying Europe — where the plan actually seems to be to cause as much annoyance as possible — these conditions all seem to be pretty much part of the grand Cheney/Rumsfeld/neocon plan. I don't think we liberals had anything to do with it.

In addition, it isn't so much that the U.S. forces have been forced to change it plan--that's bound to happen--but that it's becoming increasingly obvious that the U.S. war plan was entirely dependent on Saddam's regime folding quickly; and now that it hasn't happened, the U.S. lacks the forces for a rapid follow-on. This situation, make no mistake about it, puts the lives of both allied forces and Iraqi civilians in danger. If it's going to be considered "liberal criticism" to hold this Administration to its promises, sign me up.